One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
A question for all you conservative Christians
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 23 next>>
May 15, 2019 10:09:48   #
Radiance3 (a regular here)
 
whitnebrat wrote:
The question is as follows: As a practicing Christian, can you support both anti-abortion and capital punishment at the same time?
It would seem that there is a fundamental conflict between those two viewpoints. On one hand we have the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (KJV Exodus 20:13), and on the other hand you have the Biblical imperative of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."(KJV Exodus 21:23-25)
To my way of thinking, you can't have it both ways. I have to give the Catholic church credit for their viewpoint on this, which states that they are against both abortion and capital punishment.
If you take the viewpoint that capital punishment is the act of a society and not the individual, I would posit that capital punishment is an act for which every member of that society is responsible, and therefore is equally guilty of violating the Sixth Commandment.
You also have "Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (KJV Romans 12:19) This would seem to negate any possibility of either an individual or a society to take revenge on a perpetrator that violates the Sixth Commandment.
How do you reconcile these seemingly contradictory viewpoints?
The question is as follows: As a practicing Christ... (show quote)


=================
Here are the problems you are confused about.
Commandment number 6 “Thou shall not kill. -Killing is justified for example in war, and self-defense, or to end the life of a suffering animal for instance with no hope of getting well.
While murder is not. For example: Abortion is murder of an innocent baby or infant. We must not allow that. Thus thou shall not murder must be the word to use.


You are also confused on this “An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. From Exodus 21:-23-25.
That was from the Old Testament. Not advised in the New Testament when Jesus gave us a new Covenant of His teachings.

You also have "Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (KJV Romans 12:19) This would seem to negate any possibility of either an individual or a society to take revenge on a perpetrator that violates the Sixth Commandment.

This again, you’ve misunderstood its meaning. That Jesus wants us not to retaliate of commit vengeance, if someone hurts us.. We must not take it in our hands. We must let the Lord take over the punishment. who said “Vengeance is mine”

| Reply
May 15, 2019 10:15:09   #
Lonewolf (a regular here)
 
Radiance3 wrote:
=================
Here are the problems you are confused about.
Commandment number 6 “Thou shall not kill. -Killing is justified for example in war, and self-defense, or to end the life of a suffering animal for instance with no hope of getting well.
While murder is not. For example: Abortion is murder of an innocent baby or infant. We must not allow that.


You are also confused on this “An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. From Exodus 21:-23-25.
That was from the Old Testament. Not advised in the New Testament when Jesus gave us a new Covenant of His teachings.

You also have "Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (KJV Romans 12:19) This would seem to negate any possibility of either an individual or a society to take revenge on a perpetrator that violates the Sixth Commandment.

This again, you’ve misunderstood its meaning. That Jesus wants us not to retaliate of commit vengeance, if someone hurts us.. We must not take it in our hands. We must let the Lord take over the punishment. who said “Vengeance is mine”
================= br b Here are the problems you ... (show quote)



| Reply
May 15, 2019 10:18:07   #
Radiance3 (a regular here)
 
Lonewolf wrote:


============
Lone, thank you. First time you agreed with me.

| Reply
May 15, 2019 10:21:24   #
Fodaoson
 
I am opposed to abortion unless the mother’s life is at stake. . Rape and incest present a problem. Capital punishment should apply only to murder cases

| Reply
May 15, 2019 10:30:09   #
whitnebrat
 
Zemirah wrote:
Before putting forth this question, if you had read any modern Bible that said "thou shall not kill," instead of the correct "Thou shall not commit murder,", there would be an asterick and footnote explaining the true meaning in the original Hebrew.

A legal execution by an authorized government is not murder.

It is the responsibility of the government to administer justice and to maintain law and order.

You are trying to equate an individual citizen with the government.

There is no contradiction.
Before putting forth this question, if you had rea... (show quote)

I accept the incorrect translation of the commandment.
However, the idea that the government cannot murder strikes me as somewhat off the mark. If, in our society, it is a "government of the people, by the people and for the people" as Lincoln described it, then we collectively have to take the responsibility for the execution. There is no logical way out of that responsibility. We form the society, therefore we are (however indirectly) responsible for that governmental murder.

| Reply
May 15, 2019 10:34:47   #
jack sequim wa
 
Morgan wrote:
From this standpoint we shouldn't be engaged in war either, but we like to be righteous to all of our actions, also it is somehow hard for me to imagine a truly divine entity seeking revenge. That is a human emotion and not a good one. Once again a book written by man along with his trappings.

We can also talk about when is a human a human and not a 'potential".




Hey Morgan,
Hope all is going well and enjoying summer.

This argument made me remember a story in the old Testament when God called for an entire city of people be taken out.
The people were very savage in human sacrifice, sex orgies and just about every other dark thing. They would have destroyed the Hebrews and the off spring once grown would have sought revenge. These were the same Hebrews that escaped over 300 years of slavery and bondage of Egypt.

Since the beginning of recorded history, over 5000 years of history. For every thirteen years of war (on average) there has only been 1 year of peace.
Many of the wars in the last several hundred years have been what I believe to be unjustified attacks with some exceptions, more exceptions in self defense from being attacked.
It would seem mankind as a whole has a blood lust for power, wealth and resources that go beyond rational thought. We are left with determining which wars are justified and why. America has been on different sides of warring to save countries from "evil" dictators, protecting itself from attack or preventing an attack, then the many unjustified political wars that in my opinion was nothing more than mass murder motivated by lust, greed, power. I like or would like to believe America has done more good assisting the weak and helpless countries and peoples.
Did dropping the bomb on Japan cost more lives or save more lives? Considering the torture it cost hundreds of thousands of people and given the unknowns had we not dropped the bomb. This debate still goes on even today.

| Reply
May 15, 2019 10:43:36   #
whitnebrat
 
crazylibertarian wrote:
The criminal has committed a crime. The fetus has not with the exception of Original Sin a consequence of being human and fallible.


Now try answering this question, if you're a liberal non-Christian. If you oppose slavery, how do you support an income tax?

Good question. In my opinion, the income tax (however inequitable it may be), is a contribution to provide services that the individual cannot reasonably provide for themselves (a road system, airline safety and control, defense of the society, the justice system). If you do away with the income tax, another form of taxation would have to be provided for the society to function.
As for the fetus ... I would pose this question in return ... if the fetus is known to be so damaged as to pose a multi-year, twenty-four hour, requirement for intensive care, that will bankrupt the family involved, isn't there a valid cause for pregnancy termination. The family is the one that will bear the immense cost, both physically, mentally, financially and emotionally. In some cases, they can bear that burden until the child is 18. at which the state can take guardianship and relieve the parents of the responsibility ... but that requires some form of taxation from the rest of us in order to provide that service.
There may not be an easy answer to all of this.
If you posit that the parents are responsible no matter what, they could not possibly know what the outcome would be at the time of conception ... is that fair?
Looking forward to the responses on this one ...

| Reply
May 15, 2019 10:46:20   #
jack sequim wa
 
fullspinzoo wrote:
You just went up 5 points on the humanity decency scale. Well said, CD!




I'll second that. Very much accurately stated.

| Reply
May 15, 2019 11:04:21   #
whitnebrat
 
jack sequim wa wrote:
Hey Morgan,
Hope all is going well and enjoying summer.

This argument made me remember a story in the old Testament when God called for an entire city of people be taken out.
The people were very savage in human sacrifice, sex orgies and just about every other dark thing. They would have destroyed the Hebrews and the off spring once grown would have sought revenge. These were the same Hebrews that escaped over 300 years of slavery and bondage of Egypt.

Since the beginning of recorded history, over 5000 years of history. For every thirteen years of war (on average) there has only been 1 year of peace.
Many of the wars in the last several hundred years have been what I believe to be unjustified attacks with some exceptions, more exceptions in self defense from being attacked.
It would seem mankind as a whole has a blood lust for power, wealth and resources that go beyond rational thought. We are left with determining which wars are justified and why. America has been on different sides of warring to save countries from "evil" dictators, protecting itself from attack or preventing an attack, then the many unjustified political wars that in my opinion was nothing more than mass murder motivated by lust, greed, power. I like or would like to believe America has done more good assisting the weak and helpless countries and peoples.
Did dropping the bomb on Japan cost more lives or save more lives? Considering the torture it cost hundreds of thousands of people and given the unknowns had we not dropped the bomb. This debate still goes on even today.
Hey Morgan, br Hope all is going well and enjoyin... (show quote)

Interesting post ... I happen to agree with most of it. Self-defense is usually valid, but only in equal terms of threat.
If someone accosts me and demands my purse without any obvious weapon but themselves, I probably would not have the right to haul out my concealed weapon and shoot them.
If someone is just trespassing on my property, I can ask them to leave, but I can't threaten them with lethal force.
Wars are usually the result of either population pressure, or a ruler's lust for power and territory. The basic reasons haven't changed, but the toys of conflict certainly have.
Should we have dropped the atomic bomb? There are many that thought that we could have blockaded Japan and brought about an end to the war that way. There were those that didn't want to wait, and wanted to get the show over with ... by invading the islands. Then there was the alternative of the A-bomb. The first alternative would have taken an additional year or more and wreaked untold havoc on the civilian population of Japan. The second alternative would have cost untold casualties among the Allies that were considered unacceptable. The third alternative, while expeditious, opened up a new set of miseries and threats to the world ... coupled with the delivery system of the ICBM, it causes a certain amount of fear and consternation to populations worldwide.
The ethics of war are never justified, but self-defense almost always is. Was dropping the bomb required by pressures of time, or could we have waited them out with a blockade? What was the ethical thing to do in the Biblical sense?

| Reply
May 15, 2019 11:23:21   #
Morgan
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Although I can see many of your points in this response, I have much difficulty with this one...

What exactly is a "potential"?


What is possibly to be

| Reply
May 15, 2019 11:23:38   #
Lonewolf (a regular here)
 
War is about money, we are ruled by the industrial military complex

| Reply
May 15, 2019 11:25:00   #
Morgan
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Although I can see many of your points in this response, I have much difficulty with this one...

What exactly is a "potential"?


What may be yet to be

| Reply
May 15, 2019 11:25:31   #
whitnebrat
 
As for the Biblical interpretations, I have to respond that they are just that ... interpretations. If you take the Bible literally as the divine word of God, the contradictions that are presented as to 'kill' and other admonitions just can't be reconciled.
If you, contrarily, take a more nuanced view of the Biblical texts, then you are overlaying your own biases, prejudices and opinions into the meaning of the texts.
My personal belief notwithstanding, there is little if any factual proof for either side. We were not there, and we're taking the later (by centuries) word of someone (particularly in the New Testament) that was not there at the time and is quoting an oral representation of those that may or may not have heard the apostles themselves several times removed.
Given that a game of 'telephone' will produce wildly different end results compared to the input, I find it hard to accept that there are not errors introduced into the Bible (either willingly or erroneously) that influence interpretations to this day. Add to that the various translations, and you have a recipe for differences. Translations are notoriously inaccurate.
In the Buddhist theology there are thousands of sutras purporting to illuminate what the Buddha taught ... none of which were written by the Buddha himself. The written version was made only three centuries later, and relied on the oral tradition handed down for generations. Then you had translations from Sanskrit to Hindu to Chinese to Japanese to English (in that order, no less). This leads to misinterpretations that are magnitudes off the mark. Unless you go back to the closest thing to contemporaneous texts, you are doomed to fail in getting an accurate picture of what happened and what was said.
Am I a skeptic? Probably so. But to proclaim any of these texts from any religion as gospel is to get a second-hand version that may or may not be accurate. It flies in the face of logic to think otherwise. But then again, logic has little to do with faith, so I'll let it rest at this point, since it changes no minds and only stirs anger and dissent.

| Reply
May 15, 2019 11:43:18   #
jack sequim wa
 
whitnebrat wrote:
Interesting post ... I happen to agree with most of it. Self-defense is usually valid, but only in equal terms of threat.
If someone accosts me and demands my purse without any obvious weapon but themselves, I probably would not have the right to haul out my concealed weapon and shoot them.
If someone is just trespassing on my property, I can ask them to leave, but I can't threaten them with lethal force.
Wars are usually the result of either population pressure, or a ruler's lust for power and territory. The basic reasons haven't changed, but the toys of conflict certainly have.
Should we have dropped the atomic bomb? There are many that thought that we could have blockaded Japan and brought about an end to the war that way. There were those that didn't want to wait, and wanted to get the show over with ... by invading the islands. Then there was the alternative of the A-bomb. The first alternative would have taken an additional year or more and wreaked untold havoc on the civilian population of Japan. The second alternative would have cost untold casualties among the Allies that were considered unacceptable. The third alternative, while expeditious, opened up a new set of miseries and threats to the world ... coupled with the delivery system of the ICBM, it causes a certain amount of fear and consternation to populations worldwide.
The ethics of war are never justified, but self-defense almost always is. Was dropping the bomb required by pressures of time, or could we have waited them out with a blockade? What was the ethical thing to do in the Biblical sense?
Interesting post ... I happen to agree with most o... (show quote)



I think biblically destroying the enemy attack against a country at that time still recognized God over America.
If any benefit could be assumed in the use of using the atomic bomb was "perhaps" in speculation it caused other countries to fear the power of America ending wars before they started and/or stopping countries from attacking our allies and giving us muscle negotiating war between other countries.

Your point on using only necessary force is dependent on the individual. A fearful man/woman fearing an attacker. Are they fearing for their life or being harmed?
I may think I could die and use a gun, while you under the exact same circumstances may fear black eye, minor cuts and bruises. Our minds process fear or threats differently which is why there is not a set standard for involuntary man slaughter.
In martial arts we were taught to hurt, maim, kill. Regardless of the skill level, even a grand Master would fully risk being called a coward and run away to avoid fighting (except in defense of another). Even if only the attacker has a weapon the first effort is to hurt with hopes the attacker will stop and if not maim the attacker and if still attempting to attack successfully then kill. Extreme effort to use the least amount of force. Twice I have assisted someone being assaulted. The first required permanently damaging elbow joint while the second, the second trip to the ground on their back did the trick.
I have also helped a woman being slapped several times by a man in a parking lot. The only required force needed was him seeing my willingness to fight him. This jerk was nothing more than a cowardly bully.
I think defense and using only the force needed other than the individuals perceived fear of harm or death has alot to do with morals.
I have heard several make the comment "if you are found at night in my house, you will be found dead daytime". Seems a bit socialpathic to me.

| Reply
May 15, 2019 11:47:46   #
Morgan
 
crazylibertarian wrote:
The criminal has committed a crime. The fetus has not with the exception of Original Sin a consequence of being human and fallible.


Now try answering this question, if you're a liberal non-Christian. If you oppose slavery, how do you support an income tax?


I don’t believe a fetus is responsible for this exception, the original sin. Why would God make two people communing in love to create a child, a sin? That never made sense to me.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 23 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.